|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Mar 16, 2010 2:08 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: re: Transition to benevolent anarchy |
Ken Hilving
| |
Why do we have government of elected officials at all? Was there ever any reasonable need to go this route? Does the requirement still remain? I argue that the need was real, it was a question of time and travel, but that modern communications has eliminated the need.
As soon as we recognize the need for elected officials has ended and change our approach to governance, we address the issues of party systems, election corruption, and behind the scenes influence peddling.
The objective has not changed significantly. We are still seeking the common good. The requirements, however, change and with that the problems the former requirements created.
What about standing committees, offices, departments, and other traditionally perpetual government roles? Benevolent anarchy addresses these. Each committee, office, department, or other traditionally perpetual government role is now established only when there is a community recognition of need, and only to address that need, and only for a set duration. Instead of becoming a perpetual function, each must be renewed on a recurring basis.
In effect, power is returned to the governed - of the people and by the people. That is real change in power.
What of laws, rules and regulations, building codes and zoning codes, acceptable use rules, and the like? Benevolent anarchy does not eliminate these. What it does is require each rule and regulation to be reconfirmed as appropriate and of value on a regular basis, and opens up the opportunity for each citizen to challenge this and to persuade the community of the need to change. It moves these aspects of governance from being clubs to being tools.
What are the barriers to such an approach? The first, of course, is perception. The idea of no standing government officials to make demands of or place blame on will scare some people. Change is always difficult to accept. On the other hand, our community is coming off of a case where elected officials made decisions that were detrimental to us, and where the reasons for such decisions remains hidden because records were either not kept, lost, or intentionally hidden from the citizens. Prior to this we were a de facto benevolent anarchy, but without any visible structure. For our community, the change is minor.
_____
The cost and time of "limited companies" was a process aspect. Starting from scratch each time required and requires a great deal of research and effort. However, the process is replicable, which makes it an excellent candidate for automation. My solution is simple - the online form available to each citizen to initiate a proposed "limited company" to address a community need they feel exists. A defined approach to debate. A consistent method of renewal by vote.
_____
Consensus is indeed hard to achieve. Yet a great many of our current laws, regulations, and programs fail even to reach majority support. In many cases, this isn't relevant. A small subset of the governed community is impacted, that subset is for it, and the rest of the community sees little or no impact. Under benevolent anarchy, a subset of the community will be able to act on their special interest once they have sufficient support within their group. Consensus will not be needed.
Keep in mind that benevolent anarchy has already addressed the perpetual issue, so even when an action is taken it has limited long term implications. This is a key difference from traditional government where power and authority is moved from citizens to a group of elected officials empowered to "act on their behalf" between elections.
_____
In Texas, we already have early voting in place of one scheduled day. At some point, a person can decide they know their position on the ballot issues, and choose to vote rather than wait for more discussion.
Now the one day voting practice and now the early voting opportunity are based on the need to confirm an individual is authorized to vote (voter registration) and only votes once. As long as the voting process does this, the specifics are a matter of procedure. The procedure also must assure the vote is secret - no one has to fear that how they voted will make them a target of retribution.
Special elections are allowed, provided they meet the same criteria, if a community chooses.
This opens up the opportunity of continual self governance versus an election day mindset. It may prove useful with a benevolent anarchy method of governance.
_____
Very little community governance is necessary. Most of the time, we live our lives without thinking about government at all. Our contact with government is issue driven, typically because of an immediate need like a hole in the road or because of a government action imposed on us like notification of some new assessment or violation of some new regulation.
Benevolent anarchy allows each of us to raise our issues, and reduces the chance of having some action imposed on us. The proposed new development, the requested change in zoning codes, are no longer presented only to a small group of elected officials. Attending the public portion of council meetings is no longer the method of keeping abreast of possible dramatic changes. Closed sessions are no longer possible. All of these occur as community discussions, without the restrictions of time and place.
Will this protect us against the developer who buys up our neighbor's ranch? There is no assurance of this, but current government certainly did not protect us either. Will it protect us from deals made behind closed doors between elected officials and developers? Most certainly. We may choose poorly, but at least the choice will have been ours to make.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving (new win) |
|
| |
|
